Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India|| Case Summary || 2008 6 SCC 1 || Reservation and Right to Equality

Reservation and Right to Equality

FACTS

The case of Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India challenged the constitutional validity of the 93rd Constitutional Amendment, which inserted Article 15(5), enabling the State to provide reservations for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in educational institutions, including private unaided institutions (except minority institutions).

Ashok Kumar Thakur, the petitioner, contested the 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central educational institutions, arguing it violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15(1) (Prohibition of Discrimination).

ISSUES

1. Is the 93rd Constitutional Amendment and reservation for OBCs in higher education institutions constitutional?

2. Does reservation in private unaided institutions violate fundamental rights?

3. Should there be an economic criterion for reservations instead of caste-based classification?

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court (5-judge bench) upheld the 93rd Constitutional Amendment and the 27% OBC reservation, with some conditions:

1. Reservation is constitutional but should exclude the creamy layer of OBCs to prevent misuse.

2. The principle of merit should not be undermined, and reservation should not exceed 50%, as per Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).

3. Private unaided institutions cannot be forced to implement reservations, as it would violate Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Practice Any Profession).

   
   
   
   

SIGNIFICANCE

1. Reinforced the constitutional validity of caste-based reservations while ensuring exclusion of the creamy layer.

2. Strengthened Indra Sawhney principles on the 50% cap on reservations.

3. Marked a significant ruling on education policy and affirmative action in India.

   
   

   Vinita Pathak